Kim Leadbeater MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The reports for the case would go to the commissioner, so he or she would see the reports.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly the point? This is a unique situation, and therefore we need a unique system. That is the perfect opportunity to use the skills that a judge or retired judge has.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the hon. Member’s framing of this and it might very well be his perspective, but there were 650 MPs who voted on Second Reading that day, so I think it is unfair to represent colleagues who did not have the view that this is the central component of the Bill. There are lots of other components to the Bill that colleagues have certainly spoken to me about, and it is important to acknowledge that.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have already talked about this, and I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned it himself: there is a similar situation with public inquiries, on which a judge sits because of their skillset and who they are, but not necessarily in a traditional judicial capacity.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is another important argument for having the panel. Where a terminally ill person with an eating disorder has been deemed to have capacity by two doctors and—I surmise, as we now have the compulsory referral—a psychiatrist, we will have on the panel another psychiatrist and a social worker. The panel does help to address concerns about capacity. Does the Minister agree?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is been very generous with his time. I am interested in how he can conclude that the eligibility criteria have somehow been expanded by adding an expert panel with a psychiatrist and a social worker.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not entirely sure who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but it is fair to say that there is a range of views across a range of professions. It is important to acknowledge that.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There is a judge—it may be a retired judge—who is the commissioner, who heads up the entire assisted dying commission, and there is a legal expert on the panel as well, as the hon. Gentleman said. That could be a retired judge, so there is legal expertise there. I think the hon. Gentleman also made the point that there is not a doctor on the panel. My understanding is that psychiatrists are doctors, but I will stand corrected if that is not true.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is really important to be clear about this. I do not think anyone is suggesting that what is in the Bill will replace existing good practice. That is really important. We probably all have family and friends who are being treated for cancer now, and they are looked after and cared for by a multidisciplinary team. That team does not suddenly disappear, to be replaced by what is in the Bill; it can continue. The assisted dying option involves the two doctors, and I struggle to envisage any situation in which they would not work with the multidisciplinary team and add on, where appropriate and necessary, psychiatric intervention, social care and healthcare professionals. I always come back to the point that I do not think the two things will operate independently.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have all been told off, and quite rightly. I thank colleagues for another powerful, robust and thorough debate on this important subject. I thank the Minister for providing such an excellent and clear description of the changes to clause 12 that I have proposed this afternoon—I will not repeat that description. The Bill is already the strongest of its kind anywhere in the world. My amendments will make it even more robust. As we have heard, the Bill is much safer than the existing ban on assisted dying, which leaves terminally ill people and their families without any such protections at all. The proposal to have a multidisciplinary panel, appointed by a judge, to examine each request, following earlier assessments by two independent doctors and, where necessary, a psychiatrist, reflects the expert testimony we have heard during our proceedings. It strengthens the Bill by adding more varied expertise to the decision-making process, with judicial oversight, and it includes an important monitoring and reporting function in the commissioner. My amendments show the Committee process working exactly as it should, reflecting on evidence from the UK and around the world, and making a strong Bill even stronger. I appreciate that, for procedural reasons, we will not vote on the replacement of clause 12 until the new clauses are put, but I am encouraged that colleagues have offered positive responses and comments to the proposal for a commissioner and a multidisciplinary panel, regardless of how they voted on Second Reading. That tells me that, whatever our views on the Bill, there is a shared commitment to getting protections for terminally ill adults right, which means that we are doing our job. Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I was pleased to support my hon. Friend’s amendment on additional training on domestic abuse, coercive control and financial abuse for doctors who take part in the assisted dying process. As members appointed to the panel will already be very well qualified in the fields of law, psychiatry and social work, I am confident that they will have the necessary expertise to determine referrals, but I appreciate the challenges in detecting the subtleties of coercion, as the Committee has discussed at length. As such, I support amendment (c). Amendment (a) to new schedule 2 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I am fully supportive of her position on ensuring accessibility and equality for Welsh speakers, but in this instance I have some concerns about the barrier her amendment may create for patients in accessing the assisted dying process in a timely manner, and therefore about the workability of the amendment. Under the Welsh Language Act 1993, as the Minister said, all public bodies operating in Wales must create a Welsh language scheme with the aim of ensuring that Welsh and English are treated equally in all aspects of public service delivery. The Ministry of Justice’s Welsh language scheme, for example, sets out where services can be provided in Welsh, typically through translation services. I take on board the right hon. Lady’s comments about the limitations of using translators. Given the sensitivity of the conversations and deliberations we are discussing, we need to be sensitive to that. It is, of course, the patient’s prerogative to request a fully Welsh-speaking panel, if that is what they want at such a difficult time—as long as they are made aware of the potential delays this may or may not create. That is my concern. My reading of amendment (a) is that it is not the right hon. Lady’s intention that this will be required in every case. However, it will ensure a very patient-centred approach, in which I believe passionately. I take on board the Minister’s concerns, which I appreciate may need to be considered further down the line, but I am minded to support amendment (a) to new schedule 2. Finally, amendment (e) to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), in on audio and video material. I think this comes from a really personal, sensitive and important place, and demonstrates a very patient-centred approach, so I am also minded to support it this afternoon. I would welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding some of the legal language and terminology around other amendments, and as such, I will not be supporting them this afternoon. We have had another thorough debate, and I welcome the contributions from colleagues across the Committee.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It was a delight to see the mum of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Sadly, I think she is no longer in the Public Gallery, but I hope they had a really good chat.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a point that we hopefully all agree with. The job of the Committee is to take evidence and look at ways of improving the Bill on that basis. This is a really good example of where we have actually done our job and done it very, very well.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 469, in clause 13, page 9, line 11, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”. This amendment is consequential to Amendment 472.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to acknowledge that it will be a number of years before this law will be implemented. Hopefully, the Government will continue the fantastic job that they are doing to improve capacity in our courts, so that even if capacity is an issue now, a few years down the line it will not be.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I might be missing something—it has been a long day—but, presumably, by the time the patient has got to that point, they have been through the eligibility criteria with the two doctors. The hon. Lady said that they would not be terminally ill, but they would have been through all the assessment criteria at this point.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Many of us have quoted Sir James Munby, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, but there are a number of other views from ex-judges and very highly-regarded legal professionals that conflict with what Sir James says.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It absolutely is the policy intent that there should be a unanimous decision of the panel. If there is any lack of clarity, I am very happy to look into working with official draftspeople to tighten that up.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 201 provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant, which makes sense. Amendment 422 requires an assessing doctor to make such inquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. Amendment 423 requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor. The amendments seek to emphasise the importance of taking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the assessments by both doctors. The Bill as drafted provides that the assessing doctor must “make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate” when making the first and second assessments. With the amendments, I have sought to strengthen that language, by being much more explicit and making specific reference to consulting health and social care professionals. I have done so in response to the evidence we have received from professionals such as nurses and social workers, who often spend a significant amount of time with terminally ill adults. It is clearly right that the assessing doctors should have access to all relevant details of a person’s medical records. If the records show that the person has recently been receiving health or social care, that may impact their application, so the doctors have to consult the providers of that care. As is the case at all stages in the process, records should be kept of any and all such discussions, and reports should be shared where appropriate. Taken together, the amendments would ensure that the doctors’ assessments are thorough and comprehensive, and have taken into consideration the views and opinions of any wider health and social care team that may be working with a patient.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the other amendments in the group; however, I listened carefully to the debate on amendment 459 and the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister. My view on that amendment has changed: I do think independence is really important in the doctor’s opinions during the normal process that the Bill sets out. However, it is a really fair point to make that if the independent doctor refuses the patient, there needs to be transparency about that, and it is important that everybody involved in the process can see how that decision has been made. That is a really valid point. It is a good example of how this Bill Committee is operating, and should be operating, in that we have been listening to different views and opinions. I take on board the Minister’s point on capacity. We need to be aware of that. We will hopefully debate the third layer later today. That layer may be a panel of experts who are there to oversee the full picture of the patient journey. For them to see what has happened with the doctors that they have interacted with is very important. Therefore, I am minded to support amendment 459.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert “, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”. This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have nothing to add on this group of amendments. I am confident that the Bill as drafted already includes significant periods of reflection. Bearing in mind that we are putting dying people through a very lengthy process already, I remain confident that the periods of reflection are adequate as set out in the Bill.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. Member’s point about recording those consultations, amendment 423 states in its proposed new subsection (2B): “Where an assessing doctor consults a professional…the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”So the consultation is recorded.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly to this small amendment, which provides that a further referral be made under clause 10 when a practitioner dies or is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor due to illness. In the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who has agreed to give a second opinion dies or—because of illness or whatever reason—is unable to continue before making a report into the case, it would be right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. I hope the Committee will support my amendment 205.